1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Automated coregistered imaging using a hand-held probe-based optical imager
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.3271019
/content/aip/journal/rsi/81/2/10.1063/1.3271019
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/rsi/81/2/10.1063/1.3271019

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Hand-held probe-based optical imaging system. (b) Illumination-collection fiber layout on the probe head. The solid big red circles are the illumination fiber locations and the remaining black dots are the collection fiber locations.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Schematic of the frequency-domain optical imaging instrumentation, using a flexible hand-held optical probe.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Flowchart of the coregistered imaging process, implemented as automated coregistration software during optical imaging studies.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Coregistered surface contour images of fluorescence intensity (subtracted and normalized) obtained from face 1 of a cubical phantom containing a target located at [1.5, 1.5, 2.8] cm. The white dotted line corresponds to the hand-held probe location on face 1 of the cubical phantom and the white circle corresponds to the true target location in 2D. The probe was moved along the height of the phantom, with its location varying in the increments of 0.5 cm, starting from up to 2.5 cm [(a)–(f)].

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(Enhanced online) The coregistered images (as 2D surface contour plots of subtracted and normalized fluorescence intensity data) of the cubical phantom from multiple scans (along the z-axis) performed on the four faces of the phantom (as shown). The phantom contained a target at 1:0 fluorescence and optical contrast at [1.5, 1.5, 2.8] cm. Individual coregistered images from each face (as shown for face 1 in Fig. 4) were combined to generate the current 3D plot. The figure also represents single frame excerpts from real-time coregistered imaging of the cubical phantom, with images retained from previous scans. (media 1.09 MB, enhanced online). [URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3271019.1]10.1063/1.3271019.1

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a) The percentage error between the true target location and experimental target location for scans 1–6 is shown for phantom faces 1 and 4. The large degree of variability between scans can be attributed to the untracked changes in phantom position and orientation. (b) The standard deviation of five repeated images for each scanned location shown for phantom faces 1 and 4. The large degree of variability between scans can be attributed to instrument error from the optical imaging system due to probe movement against the phantom surface during the period in which the five repeated images were being acquired.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

A 3D isosurface plot of the reconstructed tissue phantom showing the reconstructed and the true target location, for an experimental case with 1:0 fluorescence optical contrast of a single target located 1.5 cm deep (from the plane).

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Coregistered surface contour images of fluorescence intensity (subtracted and normalized) obtained from a cubical phantom containing a target located 3 cm deep at [3, 2.5, 2.8] cm. The white dotted line corresponds to the hand-held probe location on the imaging face of the cubical phantom and the white circle corresponds to the true target location in 2D. The probe was moved along the height of the phantom, with its location varying in the increments of 0.5 cm, starting from up to 2.5 cm [(a–(f)].

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Summated coregistered data shown as 2D surface contour plot of fluorescence intensity obtained from the surface of a cubical phantom containing a 0.45 cm target located 3 cm deep. Six coregistered images (shown in Fig. 8) were summated in this case. The white circle is the true target location in 2D.

Tables

Generic image for table

Generic image for table
Table I.

Advantages and disadvantages of different tracking methods.

video/mp4,video/x-flv,video/flv,audio.mp3,audio.mpeg

Multimedia

The following multimedia file is available, if you log in: 1.3271019.original.v1.mov
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/rsi/81/2/10.1063/1.3271019
2010-02-02
2014-04-17
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Automated coregistered imaging using a hand-held probe-based optical imager
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/rsi/81/2/10.1063/1.3271019
10.1063/1.3271019
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM